This post is about the situations of decisionmaking wich the players encounter while playing. I talked about this in my post Flow of Structured Information where I defined the actual play as the two-way flow of structured information. Recently I talked about the Types of Conflicts.
Every decision is linked to a function (dramatical or mechanical) wich is always linked to a carrier. In my former posts I always assumed that functions are written down beforehand in the adventure and carriers are used intentionally by the GM. If we would define the cause of decisonmaking as function and its carrier as carrier, we have to cope with unintentional functions and their virtual carriers.
The decisions can be sorted by the functions wich caused them as mechanical decisions and dramatic decisions. Mechanical decisions are based on opportunities given by the rules. For example in D&D combat to choose wich Feat to use. Dramatical decisions are to decide to be friendly or not in face of an NPC.
The other sorting can based upon how much of the player's will is realized by the decision. Intented decisions are based upon reasonable thoughts, while unintended decisions are based upon reflexes, subconscious, luck, everything that is outside of the players reach. The above examples have been intended decisions, but to roll the dice is an unintended mechanical decision, while the subconscious reflexes playing in-character (grunts, making faces) are unintended dramatic decisions. It's important to differentiate between subconsious reflexes of the character and that of the player. Unintended dramatic decisions depend only whether the player intends to do it or just does it. If the player intentionally plays the character to get disgusted by the NPC whom (s)he tries to seduce, it's a totally intented decision, because the player matters, not the character.
Decisions can be differentiated by the situation of decision. A situation of decisionmaking is always a crossroad: the player has to decide wich way to go. Every decision has consequences.
Let's imagine the crossroad of the decisiontree. The player arrives from one way, and sees the other roads. Knows wich road leads in wich direction (the local values of the decision) and has a general idea about the layout of the map (thinks something about the consequences), but doesn't know where exactly does road lead (doesn't know the exact consequences). These are three important factors:
- what the decisions look like in the immediate vicinity (to attack someone to save him/her, for example to push away from another attack first seems unwanted)
- what the player thinks about the consequences (tries to save someone and doesn't know whether (s)he wil kill him/her by trying)
- what the real consequences will be (what others will think about the PC when they don't know what the PC intended to do)
By playing with these elements you can make up very complex systems, and I think it wouldn't use much trying to sort them out. I just bring up a special case wich is very important I think. That is: there are even "fatal" decisions, wich mean there are roads that lead to a cliff. Why are these important? Because it is important if the road wich the player took goes on behind the crossroad. If the player has to turn away, it is a forced decision, because (s)he has to say something, (s)he has to change a habit, or something like that.
And don't forget, that there are always infinite roads and every instance in actual play is a crossroad. This is the freedom of roleplaying. Sure, the adventure has a structure with wide, paved roads. But there are small paths on it and the player can walk on the outer side or in the center of the paved road or in extrem cases (s)he can leave it. But if your paved road is wide enough, it will happen rarely and the big crossroads of the adventure become rare.